Mt. Whitney Webcam 1

Webcam 1 Legend
Mt. Whitney Webcam 2

Webcam 2 Legend
Mt. Whitney Timelapse
Owens Valley North

Owens Valley North Legend
Owens Valley South

Owens Valley South Legend
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#67893 09/08/09 09:16 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 53
Member
Member

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 53
I would like to hear from some of you that have done both of these peaks. Which one would you consider more difficult?
Having just climbed Middle Pal, would like to know what I'm in for with Sill.

Thanks

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 135
Member
Member

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 135
What route on Sill vs. what route on Middle Pal? The southwest chutes on Sill are much easier and lower angle (class 2+) than the northeast face on Middle Pal (solid class 3 w/ exposure). On Sill, there are two very obvious chutes to take from the base of the southwest face... the northernmost (left-hand) chute has an easier top-out. The approach to Sill is obviously quite a bit longer, but goes through some excellent parts of the Sierra.
All of this is of course IMHO.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,439
Likes: 9
Member
Member

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,439
Likes: 9
Middle Palisade is easier than Sill...

On one side (east), Sill is a tough approach and the climbing is harder (and you have to deal with snow and rock).

On the other side (west), it is a heck of a long approach to get to the "easier" climbing.

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 250
Member
Member

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 250
Circumstances are everything.

My climb up Mid Pal was my 10th 14'er the summer of '07. I had done all with my 16 yr. old son. With such great success on our first 9 ascents, I got cocky and sloppy on #10.
We did not understand the route instructions and believed that we were to take the right fork at each opportunity. We had not yet done any 4th or 5th class climbing at this point and did not have a rope. We kept climbing onto steeper and steeper rock because we "knew" we were on the right route and the right route is class 3. Before we knew it we were too high on too steep of rock to down climb. We had stashed our emergency sleeping bag, poncho, extra food and extra water at about 13,000' to speed up our progress - before it got so steep. Now our progress was a creep as we were on rock like we had never seen before. Eventually we got to the crest, at the opposite end of the ridge (north) from the summit. We had to traverse around a spire on the ridge that afforded unbelievable exposure on the west side. Mentally, physically and emotionally exhausted we spent the night at 14,000 on an 8 x 8 granite platform on the spine of the ridge. We had full fleece,rain pants and hooded rain coat...and the night was mild, but we still were unable to sleep due to the low temp. Every 20 minutes or so we went through a little exercise routine to quell the shivers. Endless games of 20 questions interviened. In the AM we made a hairy traverse of the ridge to the summit and made our way down the correct route. It is my only "EPIC" and I hope not to have another.

This July we climbed Mt. Sill we hiked from South Lake over Bishop Pass and camped on Thunderbolt Pass. In the morning we hiked over Potluck Pass and up the drainage to the SW chutes on Sill. Up one chute to the summit and down another. Back to Thunderbolt for the night, back to South Lake the next day, Pizza in Bishop.

Mt. Sill was easier than Mid Pal, but it all depends on the circumstances!


climbSTRONG
"Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing" -Helen Keller
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 353
Member
Member

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 353
Originally Posted By Phil Gilbert
…… would like to know what I'm in for with Sill
If you are planning to do the North Couloir of Sill, here's a link to my photos of Sill & Gayley from last weekend.
http://grahamcracker.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album170

The North Couloir on Sill has one tricky class 3/4 section on the traverse from the Apex Col south to the western edge on Sill. This section is probably a tad bit harder than Mid Pal. Here’s a route photo by Bob Burd (taken from Apex Point). The crux is on the right side (south west). Some folks prefer a short rope for this section. There is a rappel sling/rope around a large block that can be used for descending this section


Also, SP has some very good beta on Sill
http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150410/mount-sill.html

Both Mid Pal and Sill are great Sierra scrambles. Mt Sill offers terrific views of the Palisade Glacier. Hope you have a good one!

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 202
Member
Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 202
I summitted both Sill and Middle Pal with some friends in August of 2007. My comparison of the two peaks is very similar to Grahams. I would add that Middle Pal is sustained class 3 climbing once on the rock above the glacier. Sill has that crux section traverse with some noteable exposure but in my opinion Middle Pal requires more effort overall. As long as I'm offering my opinion I'll also say that referring to Middle Pal and Sill as scrambles is a bit of an understatement. Even on the easiest routes, both of these peaks require class 3 climbing and have some fall hazard exposure.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 78
Member
Member

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 78
i agree with rick f. but at the same time i would say mt. sill takes a little more endurance from the east side, and there is one 40 ft section of class 4. they are 2 different animals. if you can do mid pal. you can do mt. sill. go find out!


Moderated by  Bob R, Doug Sr 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Mt. Whitney Weather Links


White Mountain/
Barcroft Station

Elev 12,410’

Upper Tyndall Creek
Elev 11,441’

Crabtree Meadows
Elev 10,700’

Cottonwood Lakes
Elev 10,196’

Lone Pine
Elev. 3,727’

Hunter Mountain
Elev. 6,880’

Death Valley/
Furnace Creek

Elev. -193’

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0
(Release build 20240826)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.153s Queries: 28 (0.128s) Memory: 0.7251 MB (Peak: 0.7903 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2025-04-28 08:47:49 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS